Anniversary of the Nanjing massacre

Ebbs and flows of history

THERE are two times of year when crowds swell at the sombre and imposing memorial to victims of the violence carried out here in 1937 by Japanese troops. One is during April’s grave-sweeping holiday, when Chinese families honour deceased ancestors. The other is the period surrounding the December 13th anniversary of the start of the six-week rampage that killed an estimated 300,000 Chinese and is known to history as the Nanjing Massacre.

China is never shy about putting its history to political use when it seems expedient, and this year’s anniversary, the 75th, coming at an especially sensitive juncture in China’s ever tense relationship with Japan, is one of those times.

Historians around the world generally accept China’s account of the Nanjing Massacre, and its estimate of the death toll. But there is one conspicuous problem with China’s frequent insistence that Japan (or indeed anyone) “face history squarely”. That would be China’s tendentious handling of its own modern history, replete as it is with famine, persecution and injustice inflicted on its people by a ruling party that resists accountability and can be as stubbornly denialist about its own past as is any nationalist politician in Japan.

The nature of the dilemma can be seen in two new films about a devastating famine that stuck Henan province seven years before the Communist Party gained power. One, a documentary called “The Great Famine of 1942: Human Flesh Became a Commodity Sold by Peddlers”, aired on television. The other, now showing in cinemas across China, is “1942”, the latest big-screen epic from a leading Chinese director, Feng Xiaogang.

Historians have already begun quibbling about matters of accuracy. Both works portray China’s pre-Communist leader, Chiang Kai-shek, and his Kuomintang (KMT) government as feckless and indifferent in their response to the drought-induced famine that, during the war against Japan, sent millions fleeing from Henan towards the neighbouring province of Shaanxi in search of food.

Commentators on Chinese-language online discussion boards lamented the immense suffering that was so gut-wrenchingly portrayed, but some also asked why the Chinese media fail to give similar scrutiny to the nationwide famine of the early 1960s—which was induced more by misguided policy than by drought.

“Just like Mao’s time in the ’60s, two-thirds of the people in our village died of hunger [during the famine of 1942]. There should be more reporting about the starvation situation in the ’60s,” wrote one.

“This is simply the pot calling the kettle black. Can you tell me where you could flee to on the mainland in 1960s?” asked another.

All this complicates China’s effort to turn the history of Japan’s historical misdeeds into leverage in the dispute over those uninhabited islets in the East China Sea, the ones known to China as the Diaoyu and to Japan as the Senkakus.

The conclusion last month of China’s once-a-decade leadership transition, and the end this coming weekend of Japan’s general election campaign, may offer a respite as contenders for power on both sides feel less pressure to prove themselves hawkish. Japan’s December 16th election now looks likely to restore an opposition candidate and former prime minister, Shinzo Abe, which would at least create an opportunity to realign relations on a smoother path.

Since September, when raucous and sometimes ugly anti-Japan demonstrations took place in Beijing and other Chinese cities, hardline figures on both sides have continued to exchange volleys of fiery rhetoric. Amid the acrimony, the Japanese carmaking and tourist industries have seen declining revenues from China. A report last week in Japan’s Asahi Shimbum said that Toyota has already decided to postpone construction of one new car plant in China, and is considering delaying another.

One good metric on the Chinese side will be the amount of fervid anti-Japanese content that appears in state-run news and entertainment outlets on this year’s anniversary. Like the crowds at Nanjing’s memorial hall, the volume of such content ebbs and flows, according to tide tables set by the commissars who control Chinese media. It is a longstanding pattern, and the amount of official attention paid to the Nanjing massacre has served as a particularly good indicator.

“The government has used the Nanjing massacre for years as a tool,” says Xu Xin, a professor at Nanjing University. “It is like a thermometer telling the temperature of relations between China and Japan. Whenever there is a dispute, there are more news reports and television programmes showing how bad the Japanese were,” he said.

In the run-up to December 13th this year, Chinese media have kept the anti-Japan drumbeat to a minimum. A new three-volume history of the massacre is being published to mark the anniversary (with English and Japanese translations due out later), but state-run news outlets are not paying nearly as much attention to this anniversary as they did to the September anniversary of Japan’s 1931 incursion into northern China. To judge from the light security presence outside Japan’s embassy in Beijing, police are not expecting any repeat of September’s excitement.

Indeed, quiet commemorations of such anniversaries have been the rule, and protests have been the exception. For decades after the war, Chinese accounts rarely singled out the events in Nanjing from the vast, ugly blur of wartime history. Only in the early 1980s did this change. Some historians, such as Yinan He, who is based in America, argue that China pragmatically downplayed its wartime history in the years leading to the 1970s normalisation of relations with Japan; and that the shift in tone of the 1980s served to foster nationalism and unity in unsettled times.

Another professor at Nanjing University, the historian Zhang Sheng, disagrees, attributing the change of tone to the emergence of massacre deniers in Japan, and their efforts to downplay Japanese misconduct in school textbooks.

“Japanese denial spurred Chinese people—and scholars around the world—to research the issue,” he said.

If you actually study what Mao / Deng were really concerned about in 1970s, you would not have given that answer. The reason why Mao, decided to make good with the Japanese and the US, was to counter the Soviet Union. The economy was not as important, at least not in the 1970s. By the early 1970s, China was very isolated after the fallout with the Soviet Union. If China was still on good terms with the USSR, it would not have happened.

There was genuine fear that the Japanese would sign a peace treaty with the USSR. Luckily for China, it never happened. The key sticking point with Peace Treaty was not issues of reparations, territorial disputes, but the Japanese unwillingness to sign off on the anti-hegemony clause.

To believe that Mao would have pushed through with a normalizing peace treaty with Japan, because of desire for Japanese trinkets, shows ignorance of China's strategic position in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Why did the FM say it, I don't know. But for a Filipino, let alone the Filipino FM, he must have thought through it carefully. All over SEA, the other SEA countries have complicated histories with Japan, the only exception is the Philippines (to a lessor extent Malaysia). The Philippines was promised independence by the US, so they fought the Japanese bitterly. There was no cooperation with the Japanese, unlike in Myanmar/Indonesia/Singapore. The Philippines history books do talk about comfort women, while its not mentioned in Indonesia.

I expected this tirade from you. I am not trying to justify Japanese War time actions, I am explaining how others have move on, including the country that has suffered the most. To say that the US is behind it like canabana is silly, if that was the case, then why not bring the US back to Subic. The Japanese selling arms to the Philippines is a less provocative than have the US back in the Philippines. But of course, they are little brown people, they can't think for themselves.

Included was the telegram written by Harold TEMPERLEY (Jan 1938) sent to the American Govt INTEL, describing the rape of Nanjing

From this telegram, Pres ROOSEVELT was convinced that the Rape of Nanjing was true. Pres ROOSEVELT was so upset that he called Japanese people "THOSE JAPS..." . AND ,That's why the American decided that the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bombs to be dropped on Japan

After reading about the Rape of Nanjing, The Americans felt that God would agree that the Japs deserve the Atomic bombs

ANOTHER Foreigner was John RABE--- a Gewman based in Nanjing in 1937-1938. He wrote about it in his diaries. He even wrote to HITLER to beg him to put a stop to it

I guess the principal reason why schools in Indonesia don't dwell much on the history of WWII is quite simple: The founding father of Modern Indonesia, Mr. Sukarno, was a collaborator of the Japanese occupation force.

With the exception of Philippines, a lot of then anti-colonial figures in SE Asia like Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Burma,....etc were more or less allured by the beautiful slogan of "East Asia co-prosperity sphere" and collaborated with the Japanese occupation forces to certain degree.

Even In British India, Gandhi had thought to play with such idea.

So when the "national hero" was on the wrong side of history, naturally Indonesian government doesn't want its students to learn much about the details of WWII.

Did I pick the most cowardly apologist? The guy is the FM of the Philippines. Was I picking some revisionist scholar of some third rate university, no. Maybe you disagree with him, but he has his reasons for saying those things.

Personally I also feel perplexed why PRC always produced movies that dwelled on sorrowful subjects like Nanjing Massacre in WWII.

In other victorious nations like U.S. and Russia, their studios always produced movies to glorify their famous pivotal battles like D-Day Landing and the Siege of Stalingrad.

It is not that China had not fought famous battles during WWII. For example, there were the Battle of Taierzhuang of 1938 which resulted in 40,000+ Japanese casualty and the Battle of Liberation of Burma waged in 1945.

I guessed why PRC studios don't dwell on the above battles is because:

(1) The Battle of Taierzhuang was not waged by CCP forces albeit neither by Chiang's trusted general;

(2) The Liberation of Burma was waged by Chinese forces but under the command of General Stilwell.

When PRC studio portrayed heroic figures in WWII, it always resorted to create some imaginative figures like "The Neighborhood Nanny with dual handguns".

Actually its studios could elaborate General Lin Biao who won a minor battle during WWII. But for apparent political reason, their directors stayed away from this controversial figure.

I have been reading the comments, and frankly alot of people have knee jerk reactions.

Lets talk about WW2 and how its taught. In Indonesia, they don't go into detail about the Japanese occupation until they are in Middle/High School. I don't think most elementary students in the US even study WWI/WW2 in school or very little of it, and that is for a country that is 200+ years old. In China, the Nanjing Massacre is taught to elementary school students, and this is for a country that has a 5000 year old history. You are a 5000 year old civilization, act like one !!!

The Economist would have done much better if they had reversed the order of the article. They should have started with the last paragraph asking why is the Nanjing Massacre emphasized, when the number of deaths during those six weeks is no greater than an average month during the War? And work their way backward. Why do I say this, 20 Million Chinese civilians and Soldiers were killed during the 8 year period between 1937-1945, that is 200,000 dead per month. About 200-300 K civilians and soldiers died during those six weeks of the Nanjing massacre. There are a couple of major battles that happened from 1940-1945, which resulted in more or less the same number of civilian deaths as Nanjing. What is so special about Nanjing? Is it a turning point?

There are possible explanations, there were more foreign eyewitnesses / educated Chinese eye witness in 1937-38, than in the subsequent period between 1940-45. The second reason is discussing any of the engagements of the period between 1940-45 raises the question where was the CPC? Thirdly, Nanjing is the only major incident that all Chinese can agree on. As the Economist points out the Nanjing Massacre is really only emphasized in the last 30 years.

Why isn't Zheijing - Jiangsi campaign talked about more, when 250-300K Chinese civilians where butchered by the Japanese over a two month period, largely for protecting Pilots of the Dolittle Raid.

Biological weapons were used. Something that never happened in Nanjing. Shouldn't this event be given equal or more coverage than Nanjing, since it does not show the Chinese as merely victims, but as heroes. The only movies about it are largely in the US. The Japanese were really scared from the Dolittle Raids, because it marked the first time that the Homelands were attacked. They killed 250,000 Chinese civilians to teach China a lesson. They feared at the time, that the US would setup bomber bases in China. It would make for great movie telling, than having "Batman" acting as a hero in Nanjing (again) in a totally made up story. Why do the Westerners have to save Chinese people, why can't it be the reverse !!! Why can't the Chinese hero/heroine save the sniveling White boy for once?

The obsession with Nanjing is very unhealthy. There have been three Western-Chinese co-productions about Nanjing that I know of (which I have never watched) not one joint production about the Dolittle Raids. Of course there must have been movies about the Dolittle Raid in China, but why do the Chinese state run production houses do so many coproductions about Nanjing?

Lastly, Nanjing is overemphasized because it fits in with victimhood / Strong Nation narrative. That until the CPC came to power in 1949, from the Opium War until 1949, China was weak etc. If you tell too much of the KMT victories in the WW2, the narrative is broken.

During the Mao period, more weight was giving to "liberation" of the peasants, rather than China finally standing up to West/Japan after "Century of Humiliation". The Maoist (Marxist) interpretation is China was finally liberated after x000 years of feudal oppression and backward, not just escape from the Century of Humiliation. The Japanese were alot less central in this interpretation, they were not bogeyman the Chinese see them today, but a nation captured by fascist-Imperialist clique. All revolutions/rebellions (ie Taiping/1911) were seen largely in the context of class struggle. This was the predominant narrative between 1949-1980s. The people that largely believe in this narrative today are Maoist. Where does the Nanjing fit into this, it does not really fit. The irony is in this sense they are more correct. The Communist won in 1949, not because they just ended a Century of Humiliation or were better than fighting the Japanese, but because they brought Communism to China after thousands of years of living in darkness.

I know I will get bashed for presenting the Marxist view. What was considered standard interpretation 40 years ago, now is considered "fringe" in China. Again the Economist did a poor job of not highlighting the differences in teaching history in the PRC from 1949-1980 and from 1980-now, so it clears out the ambiguity.

The Chinese aren't really into 1942, they rather watch the Life of Pi. Its being crushed at the box office by Pi. The first Ang Lee movie to do well in the PRC. Life of Pi is more popular in China than any other country in the world. Feng Xiaogang got so upset, that he got into hissy fit, and now people in China have begun to boycott the film.

One can't compare a authoritarian regime like the KMT, with an authoritarian regime with totalitarian tendencies. In the Republican Period, most of the press was in private hands, the government merely censored stories they don't like. And a newspaper would have to be a constant thorn in the side, before they would shut it down permanently.

In China today nearly all mainstream press is controlled by the state.

The British Government, for the record, has never apologised for the bombing of Dresden.

I cannot find any apology by the American Government for the Tokyo bombings or for the Dresden bombings. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide me with a hyperlink. The U.S. has also never apologised for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

The word I used was censure, not 'censor'. I should have perhaps used a different term.

I do not intend my post to become an East vs. West debate or an Allies vs. Axis debate.

So let me restate my argument: I argue that even the countries that constituted the Allies have forced the Axis countries to "face history squarely", while attempting to cover up, ignore, or deny their own crimes. This is similar to what the magazine accuses China of doing to Japan. I further argue that the magazine should hold all countries to the same standards.

My argument is not about who is historically accurate. Did I put forth any details about Nanjing or WW2. Not really, I talked about how other country's view WW2.

Maybe the Philippines Foreign Minister is a sniveling US lackey, but it does China no good to lecture him if he is. What does China gain from doing so? Ita politics, not a debate contest.

What I am saying is that the obsession with history is affecting how China deals with Japan, and now its spilling over into the South China Seas. Maybe China has a genius plan, but is smashing Japanese factories/stores a part of that plan?

"How many movies have the Chinese did on WW2? Alot, if you included all the TV series."

The above was what you said, 11 months ago. Time flies when you are having fun isn't? Now are you guilty of ignorance or not??
Even a high school student in Canada learned of this in their Social Studies. OK, you said you are not Canadian.

You have heard of the agreement between Deng and the then Japanese prime minister Tanaka right? that the disputed islands were 'Set Aside'. This is confirmed by Tanaka's own daughter not too long ago.

Yes, you have to go to China to see and hear things first hand, not just the feelings about Japan but to know the whole country.
How serious do you take a self proclaimed China 'expert' if he hasn't spent time in China, doesn't speak and read the language and gets his info from the media and wiki sites only?

As for the Philipines, not only its culture is alot closer to America, it was a US colony, not the other countries you mentioned.

it don't no matter if nanjing happened in your mind.
.
what mattered is that japns did surrender to chinese in nanjing and to the allied in tokyo bay.
.
what mattered is that japns are still the losers of ww2 and japan is still the only occupied vassal nation in the world.
.
what mattered is that tens of thousands of us GI joes (and GI janes) are roaming all over japan. poor japns can't say a word about it.
.
what mattered is that japan is still not an independent or free country.
.
I say that's punishment enough, but the 300,000 souls murdered by japs just won't have that. sorry my japns friend, it's out of my hand now. the heavenly justice will take it from here.